(N.Morgan) In new, startling revelations, Leuren Moret exposes that DHS is utilizing a covert plan initiated January 1, 2014 that targets Berkeley, CA as the first of 100 NWO cities with a template in which DHS (Homeland Security), FEMA, the Nuke “Labs”, and UC President Janet Napolitano employ a coordinated infrastructure of organized gangstalking, electronic cop toys, grid changes, and institutional infiltration as a methodology aimed at the overthrow of the USA. This new template is based on the Phoenix program originally designed to eliminate all civilian resistance to the US occupation of Vietnam. While she was DHS director, Janet Napolitano entered into agreements with 15 commonwealth nations to provide “Homeland Security” and “FEMA” services. This new template can be a mechanism for overthrown of nations throughout the world and implementation of a New World Order.

Now the regime will use assassins to take out any resistance to the overthrow of this country. Dissenters have just gotten their papers and will need to decide what action they shall take.

The Program was designed to identify and “neutralize” (via infiltration, capture, terrorism,torture, and assassination) the infrastructure of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (NLF or Viet Cong).[2][3][4][5] The CIA described it as “a set of programs that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Viet Cong”.[6] The major two components of the program were Provincial Reconnaissance Units (PRUs) and regional interrogation centers. PRUs would kill or capture suspected NLF members, as well as civilians who were thought to have information on NLF activities. Many of these people were then taken to interrogation centers where many were tortured in an attempt to gain intelligence on VC activities in the area.[7] The information extracted at the centers was then given to military commanders, who would use it to task the PRU with further capture and assassination missions.[7]

The program was in operation between 1965 and 1972, and similar efforts existed both before and after that period. By 1972, Phoenix operatives had successfully neutralized 81,740 suspected NLF operatives, informants and supporters, of whom between 26,000 and 41,000 were killed.[8][9]

Contents

History

The interrogation centers and PRUs were developed by the CIA‘s Saigon station chief Peter DeSilva. DeSilva was a proponent of a military strategy known as “counter terror” which held that terrorism was a legitimate tool to use inunconventional warfare, and that it should be applied strategically to “enemy civilians” in order to reduce civilian support for the Viet Cong. The PRUs were designed with this in mind, and began terrorizing suspected VC members in 1964.[7]Originally, the PRUs were known as “Counter Terror” teams, but they were renamed to “Provincial Reconnaissance Units” after CIA officials “became wary of the adverse publicity surrounding the use of the word ‘terror'”.[10]

In 1967 all “pacification” efforts by the United States had come under the authority of the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support, or CORDS. CORDS had many different programs within it, including the creation of a peasant militia which by 1971 had a strength of about 500,000.[11]

In 1967, as part of CORDS, the Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program (ICEX) was created,[11] from a plan drafted by Nelson Brickham partly inspired by David Galula‘s Counterinsurgency Warfare (1964), a book based on Galula’s experiences in the Algerian War which Brickham was “very taken” with and carried with him around Vietnam.[12] The purpose of the organization centered on gathering information on the NLF. It was renamed Phoenix later in the same year. The South Vietnamese program was called Phụng Hoàng, after a mythical bird that appeared as a sign of prosperity and luck. The 1968 Tet offensive showed the importance of the NLF infrastructure, and the military setback for the US made it politically more palatable for the new program to be implemented. By 1970 there were 704 US Phoenix advisers throughout South Vietnam.[11]

Officially, Phoenix operations continued until December 1972, although certain aspects continued until the fall of Saigon in 1975.[13]

Operations

The chief aspect of the Phoenix Program was the collection of intelligence information.[citation needed] NLF members would then be neutralized (captured, converted, or killed). Emphasis for the enforcement of the operation was placed on local government militia and police forces, rather than the military, as the main operational arm of the program.[11] Historian Douglas Valentine states that “Central to Phoenix is the fact that it targeted civilians, not soldiers”.[14]

Neutralization took place under special laws that allowed the arrest and prosecution of suspected communists. To avoid abuses such as phony accusations for personal reasons, or to rein in overzealous officials who might not be diligent enough in pursuing evidence before making arrests, the laws required three separate sources of evidence to convict any individual targeted for neutralization. If a suspected NLF member was found guilty, he or she could be held in prison for two years, with renewable two-year sentences totaling up to six years.[11] According to MACV Directive 381-41, the intent of Phoenix was to attack the NLF with a “rifle shot rather than a shotgun approach to target key political leaders, command/control elements and activists in the VCI.”

Heavy-handed operations—such as random cordons and searches, large-scale and lengthy detentions of innocent civilians, and excessive use of firepower—had a negative effect on the civilian population. Intelligence derived from interrogations was often used to carry out “search and destroy” missions aimed at finding the enemy and destroying them.[15][16]

Allegations of Torture

Methods of alleged torture said to have been used at the interrogation centers include:

Rape, gang rape, rape using eels, snakes, or hard objects, and rape followed by murder; electric shock (‘the Bell Telephone Hour’) rendered by attaching wires to the genitals or other sensitive parts of the body, like the tongue; the ‘water treatment’; the ‘airplane’ in which the prisoner’s arms were tied behind the back, and the rope looped over a hook on the ceiling, suspending the prisoner in midair, after which he or she was beaten; beatings with rubber hoses and whips; the use of police dogs to maul prisoners.[17]

Military intelligence officer K. Milton Osborne purports to have witnessed the following use of torture:

The use of the insertion of the 6-inch dowel into the canal of one of my detainee’s ears, and the tapping through the brain until dead. The starvation to death (in a cage), of a Vietnamese woman who was suspected of being part of the local political education cadre in one of the local villages … The use of electronic gear such as sealed telephones attached to … both the women’s vaginas and men’s testicles [to] shock them into submission.[18]

The alleged torture was supposedly carried out by South Vietnamese forces with the CIA and special forces playing a supervisory role.

Targeted killings

Phoenix operations often aimed to assassinate targets, or resulted in their deaths through other means. PRU units often anticipated resistance in disputed areas, and often operated on shoot first basis.[19] Innocent civilians were also sometimes killed. William Colby claimed that the program never sanctioned the “premeditated killing of a civilian in a non-combat situation,” and other military personnel stated that capturing NLF members was more important than killing them.[13][20][21][22]LieutenantVincent Okamoto, an intelligence-liaison officer for the Phoenix Program for two months in 1968 and a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross said the following:[23][24]

The problem was, how do you find the people on the blacklist? It’s not like you had their address and telephone number. The normal procedure would be to go into a village and just grab someone and say, ‘Where’s Nguyen so-and-so?’ Half the time the people were so afraid they would not say anything. Then a Phoenix team would take the informant, put a sandbag over his head, poke out two holes so he could see, put commo wire around his neck like a long leash, and walk him through the village and say, ‘When we go by Nguyen’s house scratch your head.’ Then that night Phoenix would come back, knock on the door, and say, ‘April Fool, motherfucker.’ Whoever answered the door would get wasted. As far as they were concerned whoever answered was a Communist, including family members. Sometimes they’d come back to camp with ears to prove that they killed people.

Strategic effect

Between 1968 and 1972, Phoenix “neutralized” 81,740 people suspected of NLF membership, of whom 26,369 were killed. A significant number of NLF were killed, and between 1969 and 1971 the program was quite successful in destroying NLF infrastructure in many important areas. By 1970, communist plans repeatedly emphasized attacking the government’s pacification program and specifically targeted Phoenix officials. The NLF also imposed quotas. In 1970, for example, communist officials near Da Nang in northern South Vietnam instructed their assassins to “kill 400 persons” deemed to be government “tyrant[s]” and to “annihilate” anyone involved with the pacification program. Several North Vietnamese officials have made statements about the effectiveness of Phoenix.[11] According to William Colby, “in the years since the 1975, I have heard several references to North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese communists who account, who state that in their mind the most, the toughest period that they faced in the whole period of the war from 1960 to 1975 was the period from 1968 to ’72 when the Phoenix Program was at work.”[25] The CIA claimed that through Phoenix they were able to learn the identity and structure of the VCI in every province.[17]

Public response and legal proceedings

One of the first people to criticize Phoenix publicly was Ed Murphy, a native of Staten Island, New York in 1970.[citation needed]

There was eventually a series of U.S. Congressional hearings. In 1971, in the final day of hearing on “U.S. Assistance Programs in Vietnam”, a former serviceman named K. Milton Osborn, described the Phoenix Program as a “sterile depersonalized murder program.” Consequently, the military command in Vietnam issued a directive that reiterated that it had based the anti-VCI campaign on South Vietnamese law, that the program was in compliance with the laws of land warfare, and that U.S. personnel had the responsibility to report breaches of the law.[citation needed]

Abuses were common.[13][26][27] In many instances, rival Vietnamese would report their enemies as “VC” in order to get U.S. troops to kill them.[28] In many cases, Phung Hoang chiefs were incompetent bureaucrats who used their positions to enrich themselves. Phoenix tried to address this problem by establishing monthly neutralization quotas, but these often led to fabrications or, worse, false arrests. In some cases, district officials accepted bribes from the NLF to release certain suspects.[11]

After Phoenix Program abuses began receiving negative publicity, the program was officially shut down. However, “several antiwar journals” alleged that another program of a similar nature, code-named “F-6”, was initiated as Phoenix was phased out.[29]

According to the Homeland Security Research Corporation, the combined financial year 2010 state and local homeland security (HLS) markets, which employ more than 2.2 million first responders, totaled $16.5 billion, whereas the DHS HLS market totaled $13 billion.[4] According to The Washington Post, “DHS has given $31 billion in grants since 2003 to state and local governments for homeland security and to improve their ability to find and protect against terrorists, including $3.8 billion in 2010”.[5]

Etymology

In an August 5, 2002 speech, U.S. President George W. Bush stated: “We’re fighting…to secure freedom in the homeland”.[8] Prior to the creation of DHS, American presidents had referred to the United States as “the nation” or “the republic”, and to its internal policies as “domestic”.[9] Also unprecedented was the use, from 2002, of the phrase “the homeland” by White House spokespeople.[9] The choice of this phrase raised questions regarding the self-image of the United States.[10]

History

Creation

The flag and seal of the Office of Homeland Security, the predecessor to the DHS

In response to the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush announced the establishment of the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) to coordinate “homeland security” efforts. The office was headed by former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, who assumed the title of Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. The official announcement stated:

“

The mission of the Office will be to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The Office will coordinate the executive branch’s efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States.[11]

”

Ridge began his duties as OHS director on October 8, 2001.

The Department of Homeland Security was established on November 25, 2002, by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. It was intended to consolidate U.S. executive branch organizations related to “homeland security” into a single Cabinet agency.

Prior to the signing of the bill, controversy about its adoption centered on whether theFederal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency should be incorporated in part or in whole (neither were included). The bill itself was also controversial for the presence of unrelated “riders“, as well as for eliminating certain union-friendly civil service and labor protections for department employees. Without these protections, employees could be expeditiously reassigned or dismissed on grounds of security, incompetence or insubordination, and DHS would not be required to notify their union representatives.

The plan stripped 180,000 government employees of their union rights.[12] In 2002, Bush Administration officials argued that the September 11 attacks made the proposed elimination of employee protections imperative.[13]

Congress ultimately passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002 without the union-friendly measures, and President Bush signed the bill into law on November 25, 2002. It was the largest U.S. government reorganization in the 50 years since the United States Department of Defense was created.

Tom Ridge was named secretary on January 24, 2003, and began naming his chief deputies. DHS officially began operations on January 24, 2003, but most of the department’s component agencies were not transferred into the new Department until March 1.[11]

President George W. Bush signs the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004 on October 1, 2003.

After establishing the basic structure of DHS and working to integrate its components and get the department functioning, Ridge announced his resignation on November 30, 2004, following the re-election of President Bush. Bush initially nominated former New York City Police Department commissioner Bernard Kerik as his successor, but on December 10, Kerik withdrew his nomination, citing personal reasons and saying it “would not be in the best interests” of the country for him to pursue the post.[citation needed] On January 11, 2005, President Bush nominated federal judgeMichael Chertoff to succeed Ridge. Chertoff was confirmed on February 15, 2005, by a vote of 98–0 in the U.S. Senate. He was sworn in the same day.[11]

In February 2005, DHS and the Office of Personnel Management issued rules relating to employee pay and discipline for a new personnel system named MaxHR. The Washington Post said that the rules would allow DHS “to override any provision in a union contract by issuing a department-wide directive” and would make it “difficult, if not impossible, for unions to negotiate over arrangements for staffing, deployments, technology and other workplace matters”.[13]

In August 2005, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer blocked the plan on the grounds that it did not ensure collective-bargaining rights for DHS employees.[13]

A federal appeals court ruled against DHS in 2006; pending a final resolution to the litigation, Congress’s fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for DHS provided no funding for the proposed new personnel system.[13] DHS announced in early 2007 that it was retooling its pay and performance system and retiring the name “MaxHR”.[11]

In a February 2008 court filing, DHS said that it would no longer pursue the new rules, and that it would abide by the existing civil service labor-management procedures. A federal court issued an order closing the case.[13]

Consolidated agencies

The following 22 agencies were incorporated into the new department:[14]

Overview

Homeland Security Advisory System

On March 12, 2002, the Homeland Security Advisory System, a color-coded terrorism risk advisory scale, was created as the result of a Presidential Directive to provide a “comprehensive and effective means to disseminate information regarding the risk of terrorist acts to Federal, State, and local authorities and to the American people.” Many procedures at government facilities are tied in to the alert level; for example a facility may search all entering vehicles when the alert is above a certain level. Since January 2003, it has been administered in coordination with DHS; it has also been the target of frequent jokes and ridicule on the part of the administration’s detractors about its ineffectiveness. After resigning, Tom Ridge stated that he did not always agree with the threat level adjustments pushed by other government agencies.[15]

In January 2003, the office[clarification needed] was merged into the Department of Homeland Security and the White House Homeland Security Council, both of which were created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Homeland Security Council, similar in nature to the National Security Council, retains a policy coordination and advisory role, and is led by the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security.[11]

As of January 13, 2011, the DHS advised the American public of an ‘elevated national threat’ level, recommending that all Americans ‘should establish an emergency preparedness kit and emergency plan for themselves and their family, and stay informed about what to do during an emergency’.[16]

The National Terrorism Advisory System, or NTAS, replaces the color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS). The NTAS will include information specific to the particular credible threat, and will not use a color-coded scale.

Ready.gov

Ready.gov program logo

Soon after the formation of Department of Homeland Security, the Martin Agency of Richmond, Virginia worked pro bono to create “Ready.gov“, a readiness website. The site and materials were conceived in March 2002 and launched in February 2003, just before the launch of the Iraq War.[17][18][19] One of the first announcements that garnered widespread public attention to this campaign was one by Tom Ridge in which he stated that in the case of a chemical attack, citizens should use duct tape and plastic sheeting to build a homemade bunker, or “sheltering in place” to protect themselves.[20][21] As a result, the sales of duct tape skyrocketed and DHS was criticized for being too alarmist.[22] The site was promoted with banner ads containing automatic audio components on commercial web sites.

National Incident Management System

On March 1, 2004, the National Incident Management System (NIMS) was created. The stated purpose was to provide a consistent incident management approach for federal, state, local, and tribal governments. Under Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5, all federal departments were required to adopt the NIMS and to use it in their individual domestic incident management and emergency prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation program and activities.

National Response Framework

In December 2004, the National Response Plan (NRP) was created, in an attempt to align federal coordination structures, capabilities, and resources into a unified, all-discipline, and all-hazards approach to domestic incident management. The NRP was built on the template of the NIMS.

Cyber-security

The DHS National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) is responsible for the response system, risk management program, and requirements for cyber-security in the U.S. The division is home to US-CERT operations and the National Cyber Alert System.[23][24] The DHS Science and Technology Directorate helps government and private end-users transition to new cyber-security capabilities. This directorate also funds the Cyber Security Research and Development Center, which identifies and prioritizes research and development for NCSD.[24] The center works on the Internet’s routing infrastructure (the SPRI program) and Domain Name System (DNSSEC), identity theft and other online criminal activity (ITTC), Internet traffic and networks research (PREDICT datasets and the DETER testbed), Department of Defense and HSARPA exercises (Livewire and Determined Promise), and wireless security in cooperation with Canada.[25]

First Responders

The DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) runs a number of technology-based programs aimed at assisting first responders, including R-Tech, Communities of Practice, and the Virtual Social Media Working Group.

R-Tech

The DHS S&T First Responder Technologies (R-Tech) program helps first responders by finding solutions in areas that first responders have gaps in their abilities to respond. The program tries to do this through fast prototyping of technologies, giving technical help and support, and sharing information.[27]

Communities of Practice

The DHS S&T First Responder Communities of Practice program gives first responders an online service for professional networking, working together on projects with other organizations, and sharing resources.[28]

Virtual Social Media Working Group

First responders have increasingly used social media in emergency response and recovery operations. Social media tools are used to connect with citizens after a disaster and share information.[29]

The Virtual Social Media Working group (VSMWG) is an online platform that gives advice to first responders on how to safely and effectively use social media in emergency response operations. The working group is made up of subject matter experts from across the U.S.[29] It was created by DHS in December 2010 and gives first responders guidance and best practices regarding the use of social media during emergencies. The DHS S&T and the VSMWG work with local and state governments, academics and nonprofits.[30]

Structure

Organizational chart showing the chain of command among the top-level officials in the Department of Homeland Security, as of July 17, 2008

The Department of Homeland Security is headed by the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is appointed by the President of the United States with the consent of the United States Senate. The Secretary serves at the pleasure of the President. The Secretary is assisted in the management of the Department by the Deputy Secretary, several Under Secretaries, and several Assistant Secretaries. Within the Department are several component agencies and internal divisions.[31]

Budget and finances

The Department of Homeland Security was authorized a budget for Fiscal Year 2015 of $60.9 billion. The budget authorization is broken down as follows:[32]

Program

Funding (in billions)

Management and Finance

Departmental Operations

Office of the Secretary

Management Directorate

$0.7

$0.1

$0.6

Analysis and Operations

Office of Intelligence and Analysis

Office of Operations Coordination

$0.3

Office of the Inspector General

$0.1

Office of Health Affairs

$0.1

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

$0.3

Immigration and Border Security

Customs and Border Protection

Management and Administration

Office of Border Patrol

Office of Field Operations

Office of Air and Marine

$12.8

$3.4

$3.9

$3.2

$0.7

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

$5.4

Citizenship and Immigration Services

$3.3

Law Enforcement Activities

Transportation Security Administration

Aviation Security

Surface Transportation Security

Intelligence and Vetting

Support

$7.3

$5.7

$0.1

$0.3

$0.9

Coast Guard

Operations

Reserve Training

Acquisitions

Mandatory Spending

$9.8

$7.0

$0.1

$1.1

$1.7

Secret Service

$1.9

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

$0.3

National Protection and Programs Directorate

Management and Administration

Infrastructure Protection and Information Security

Office of Bio-metric Identity Management

Federal Protective Service

$2.9

$0.1

$1.2

$0.3

$1.3

Science and Technology Directorate

Management and Administration

Laboratory Facilities

Research and Development

$1.1

$0.2

$0.4

$0.5

Emergency Management

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Operations

Sate and Local Programs

Disaster Relief Fund

National Flood Insurance Fund

$14.8

$0.9

$2.2

$7.0

$4.4

TOTAL

$60.9

Audit of expenditures

The DHS independent auditor is KPMG, one of the Big Four audit firms.[33] Due to the level of material weaknesses identified, KPMG were unable to audit the DHS financial statements for FY 2010.[33] KPMG were unable to express an audit opinion on the FY 2009,[34] FY 2008,[35] FY 2007,[36] FY 2005,[37] and FY 2003[38] financial statements. Attempts to access the reports for FY 2006 and FY 2004 within the ‘information for citizens’ portal met with a 404 error.[39] The Message from the DHS chief financial officer in the FY 2010 report states ‘This Annual Financial Report (AFR) is our principal financial statement of accountability to the President, Congress and the American public. The AFR gives a comprehensive view of the Department’s financial activities and demonstrates the Department’s stewardship of taxpayer dollars.’[40] The Message from the DHS chief financial officer concludes ‘I am extremely proud of the Department’s accomplishments … we will continue to build upon our successes.’[40] The Secretary of Homeland Security endorsed this message saying that the DHS is ‘continuing to be responsible stewards of taxpayer resources. The scope of our mission is broad, challenging, and vital to the security of the Nation … Thank you for your partnership and collaboration. Yours very truly, Janet Napolitano.’[41]

Seal

A DHS press release dated June 19, 2003[42] describes the seal as follows:

“

The seal is symbolic of the Department’s mission – to prevent attacks and protect Americans – on the land, in the sea and in the air. In the center of the seal, a graphically styled white American eagle appears in a circular blue field. The eagle’s outstretched wings break through an inner red ring into an outer white ring that contains the words “U.S. DEPARTMENT OF” in the top half and “HOMELAND SECURITY” in the bottom half in a circular placement. The eagle’s wings break through the inner circle into the outer ring to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security will break through traditional bureaucracy and perform government functions differently. In the tradition of the Great Seal of the United States, the eagle’s talon on the left holds an olive branch with 13 leaves and 13 seeds while the eagle’s talon on the right grasps 13 arrows.Centered on the eagle’s breast is a shield divided into three sections containing elements that represent the American homeland – air, land, and sea. The top element, a dark blue sky, contains 22 stars representing the original 22 entities that have come together to form the department. The left shield element contains white mountains behind a green plain underneath a light blue sky. The right shield element contains four wave shapes representing the oceans alternating light and dark blue separated by white lines.

”

The seal was developed with input from senior DHS leadership, employees, and the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts. The Ad Council – which partners with DHS on its Ready.gov campaign – and the consulting company Landor Associates were responsible for graphic design and maintaining heraldic integrity.

Headquarters

President George W. Bush visiting the National Operations Center in 2007.

Since its inception, the department has had its temporary headquarters in Washington, D.C.’s Nebraska Avenue Complex, a former naval facility. The 38-acre (15 ha) site, across from American University, has 32 buildings comprising 566,000 square feet (52,600 m2) of administrative space.[43] In early 2007, the Department submitted a $4.1 billion plan to Congress to consolidate its 60-plus Washington-area offices into a single headquarters complex at the St. Elizabeths Hospital campus in Anacostia, Southeast Washington, D.C. The earliest DHS began moving to St. Elizabeths is 2013.[44]

The move is being championed by District of Columbia officials because of the positive economic impact it will have on historically depressed Anacostia. The move has been criticized by historic preservationists, who claim the revitalization plans will destroy dozens of historic buildings on the campus.[45] Community activists have criticized the plans because the facility will remain walled off and have little interaction with the surrounding area.[46] On January 8, 2009, the National Capital Planning Commission approved the Department of Homeland Security’s plans to move into the campus of St. Elizabeths Hospital.[47]

The new DHS headquarters campus is now slated to open in 2021. The five-year delay is due primarily to spending cuts in construction funds imposed by Congress. In fiscal 2011, DHS and the General Services Administration (GSA; which oversees construction for DHS) requested $668 million for construction and consolidation but received only $77 million. In fiscal 2012, DHS and GSA requested $377 million but received only $106 million. In fiscal 2013, President Obama’s budget suggested giving GSA $56 million in construction funds, and DHS $89 million (to be used primarily for local road improvements and for moving the Coast Guard into its new building). The two agencies had requested $460 million. Only the new Coast Guard headquarters building is due to open on time (in 2013). This is because GSA has relied on $200 million in funding from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and a large appropriation from the fiscal 2009 federal budget to complete the structure.[48]

Criticism

Excess, waste, and ineffectiveness

The Department of Homeland Security has been dogged by persistent criticism over excessive bureaucracy, waste, ineffectiveness and lack of transparency. A House of Representatives subcommittee estimated that as of September 2008 the department has wasted roughly $15 billion in failed contracts.[49] In 2003, the department came under fire after the media revealed that Laura Callahan, Deputy chief information officer at DHS with responsibilities for sensitive national security databases, had obtained her advanced computer science degrees through a diploma mill in a small town inWyoming. The department was blamed for up to $2 billion of waste and fraud after audits by the Government Accountability Office revealed widespread misuse of government credit cards by DHS employees, with purchases including beer brewing kits, $70,000 of plastic dog booties that were later deemed unusable, boats purchased at double the retail price (many of which later could not be found), and iPods ostensibly for use in “data storage”.[50][51][52][53]

Fragmented congressional oversight

Current and former DHS officials, 9/11 Commission members, liberal and conservative policy groups[54] and the ranking Republican member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter T. King, have strongly criticized the growing number of House and Senate panels that regularly demand formal reports, testimony and formal briefings from DHS officials and staff. By 2010, there were 108 congressional committees and subcommittees claiming jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security,[55] up from 86 committees in 2004, when the 9/11 Commission published its final report, which addressed this issue, stating that “Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security.”

Former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff warns that too much oversight results, ironically, in too much autonomy for the department: “The [DHS] winds up getting a mixed message. … So either the department has no guidance or, more likely, the department ignores both because they’re in conflict. And so the department does what it wants to do.”[56]

Fusion centers

Fusion centers are terrorism prevention and response centers, many of which were created under a joint project between the Department of Homeland Security and the US Department of Justice‘s Office of Justice Programs between 2003 and 2007. The fusion centers gather information not only from government sources, but also from their partners in the private sector.[62][63]

There are a number of documented criticisms of fusion centers, including relative ineffectiveness at counterterrorism activities, the potential to be used for secondary purposes unrelated to counterterrorism, and their links to violations of civil liberties of American citizens and others.[65]

a long line of fusion center and DHS reports labeling broad swaths of the public as a threat to national security. The North Texas Fusion System labeled Muslim lobbyists as a potential threat; a DHS analyst in Wisconsin thought both pro- and anti-abortion activists were worrisome; a Pennsylvania homeland security contractor watched environmental activists, Tea Party groups, and a Second Amendment rally; the Maryland State Police put anti-death penalty and anti-war activists in a federal terrorism database; a fusion center in Missouri thought that all third-party voters and Ron Paul supporters were a threat….”[66]

The Privacy Office has identified a number of risks to privacy presented by the Fusion Center program: 1) justification for Fusion Centers, 2) ambiguous lines of authority, rules, and oversight, 3) participation of the military and the private sector, 4) data mining, 5) excessive secrecy, 6) inaccurate or incomplete information, and 7) mission creep.[69]

2009 Virginia terrorism threat assessment

In early April 2009, the Virginia Fusion Center came under criticism for publishing a terrorism threat assessment which stated that certain universities are potential hubs for terror related activity.[70] The report targeted historically black collegesand identified hacktivism as a form of terrorism.[71]

Mail interception

In 2006, MSNBC reported that Grant Goodman, “an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.”[72] The letter was sent by a devout Catholic Filipino woman with no history of supporting Islamic terrorism.[72] A spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection“acknowledged that the agency can, will and does open mail coming to U.S. citizens that originates from a foreign country whenever it’s deemed necessary”:

“All mail originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory is subject to Customs examination,” says the CBP Web site. That includes personal correspondence. “All mail means ‘all mail,'” said John Mohan, a CBP spokesman, emphasizing the point.[72]

The Department declined to outline what criteria are used to determine when a piece of personal correspondence should be opened or to say how often or in what volume Customs might be opening mail.[72]

Goodman’s story provoked outrage in the blogosphere,[73] as well as in the more established media. Reacting to the incident, Mother Jones remarked that “[u]nlike other prying government agencies, Homeland Security wants you to know it is watching you”.[74]CNN observed that “[o]n the heels of the NSA wiretapping controversy, Goodman’s letter raises more concern over the balance between privacy and security”.[75]

Employee morale

In July 2006, the Office of Personnel Management conducted a survey of federal employees in all 36 federal agencies on job satisfaction and how they felt their respective agency was headed. DHS was last or near to last in every category including:

33rd on the talent management index

35th on the leadership and knowledge management index

36th on the job satisfaction index

36th on the results-oriented performance culture index

The low scores were attributed to major concerns about basic supervision, management and leadership within the agency. Examples from the survey reveal most concerns are about promotion and pay increase based on merit, dealing with poor performance, rewarding creativity and innovation, leadership generating high levels of motivation in the workforce, recognition for doing a good job, lack of satisfaction with various component policies and procedures and lack of information about what is going on with the organization.[76][77]

Consumer satisfaction

A 2007 AP poll ranked DHS at the bottom of an index of consumer satisfaction among cabinet departments, and two of its agencies, FEMA and TSA, at the bottom, below the IRS.[78]

Jump up^Office of the Press Secretary (June 19, 2003). “Department of Homeland Security Seal”. Fact Sheet. United States Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved October 24, 2006. “Today Secretary Ridge unveiled the new Department of Homeland Security seal while speaking to 200 employees in Selfridge, Michigan.The seal is symbolic of the Department’s mission – to prevent attacks and protect Americans – on the land, in the sea and in the air. Seal Description: In the center of the seal, a graphically styled white American eagle appears in a circular blue field. The eagle’s outstretched wings break through an inner red ring into an outer white ring that contains the words “U.S. DEPARTMENT OF” in the top half and “HOMELAND SECURITY” in the bottom half in a circular placement. The eagle’s wings break through the inner circle into the outer ring to suggest that the Department of Homeland Security will break through traditional bureaucracy and perform government functions differently. In the tradition of the Great Seal of the United States, the eagle’s talon on the left holds an olive branch with 13 leaves and 13 seeds while the eagle’s talon on the right grasps 13 arrows. Centered on the eagle’s breast is a shield divided into three sections containing elements that represent the American homeland – air, land, and sea. The top element, a dark blue sky, contains 22 stars representing the original 22 entities that have come together to form the department. The left shield element contains white mountains behind a green plain underneath a light blue sky. The right shield element contains four wave shapes representing the oceans alternating light and dark blue separated by white lines. Background: The seal was developed with input from DHS senior leadership, employees, and the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts. The Ad Council, which currently partners with DHS on its Ready campaign, and the consulting company Landor Associates were responsible for graphic design and maintaining heraldic integrity. Going Forward: All 180,000 DHS employees will soon receive a DHS lapel pin and a personalized DHS certificate. The personalized certificate signifies that the employee was part of the Department of Homeland Security at its inception. The seal will ultimately be used on department materials, signage, credentials, badges, vehicles, sea vessels and aircraft. Media wishing to obtain a high resolution version of the new Department of Homeland Security seal should contact the press office.”

While on-the-ground support of disaster recovery efforts is a major part of FEMA’s charter, the agency provides state and local governments with experts in specialized fields and funding for rebuilding efforts and relief funds for infrastructure by directing individuals to access low interest loans, in conjunction with the Small Business Administration. In addition to this, FEMA provides funds for training of response personnel throughout the United States and its territories as part of the agency’s preparedness effort.

History

Federal emergency management in the U.S. has existed in one form or another for over 200 years.[citation needed] FEMA’s history is summarized as follows.

Prior to 1930s

A series of devastating fires struck the port city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, early in the 19th century. The 7th U.S. Congress passed a measure in 1803 that provided relief for Portsmouth merchants by extending the time they had for remitting tariffs on importedgoods. This is widely considered the first piece of legislation passed by the federal government that provided relief after a disaster.[5]

Piecemeal approach (1930s–1960s)

After the start of the Great Depression in 1929, President Herbert Hoover had commissioned the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 1932.[6] The purpose of the RFC was to lend money to banks and institutions to stimulate economic activity. RFC was also responsible for dispensing federal dollars in the wake of a disaster. RFC can be considered the first organized federal disaster response agency.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (1973–1979)

Federal disaster relief and recovery was brought under the umbrella of the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD),in 1973 by Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973, and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration was created as an organizational unit within the department. This agency would oversee disasters such as occurring until its incorporation into the FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, created by Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978, and implemented by Executive Orders 12127 and 12148.

Prior to implementation of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 by E.O. 12127 and E.O. 12148, many government agencies were still involved in disaster relief; in some cases, more than 100 separate agencies might be jockeying for control and jurisdiction of a disaster.[7]

Over the years, Congress increasingly extended the range of covered categories for assistance, and several presidential executive orders did the same. By enacting these various forms of legislative direction, Congress established a category for annual budgetary amounts of assistance to victims of various types of hazards or disasters, it specified the qualifications, and then it established or delegated the responsibilities to various federal and non-federal agencies.[8]

These actions demonstrated that during those years, the nation’s domestic preparedness was addressed by several disparate legislative actions, motivated by policy and budgetary earmarking, and not by a single, unifying, comprehensive strategy to meet the nation’s needs over time.[9] Then, in 1978 an effort was made to consolidate the several singular functions; FEMA was created to house civil defense and disaster preparedness under one roof. This was a very controversial decision.[8]

In July, Carter signed Executive Order 12148 shifting disaster relief efforts to the new federal-level agency. FEMA absorbed the Federal Insurance Administration, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, the National Weather Service Community Preparedness Program, the Federal Preparedness Agency of the General Services Administration and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration activities from HUD. FEMA was also given the responsibility for overseeing the nation’s Civil Defense, a function which had previously been performed by the Department of Defense‘s Defense Civil Preparedness Agency.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton appointed James Lee Witt as FEMA Director. In 1996, the agency was elevated to cabinet rank.[10] This was not continued by President George W. Bush.[11] Witt initiated reforms that would help to streamline the disaster recovery and mitigation process. The end of the Cold War also allowed the agency’s resources to be turned away from civil defense to natural disaster preparedness.[7]

After FEMA’s creation through reorganization and executive orders, Congress continued to expand FEMA’s authority by assigning responsibilities to it. Those responsibilities include dam safety under the National Dam Safety Program Act; disaster assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act; earthquake hazards reduction under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 and further expanded by Executive Order 12699, regarding safety requirements for federal buildings and Executive Order 12941, concerning the need for cost estimates to seismically retrofit federal buildings; emergency food and shelter under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987; hazardous materials, under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986;

In addition, FEMA received authority for counter terrorism through the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici amendment under the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996, which was a response to the recognized vulnerabilities of the U.S. after the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995.[9]

Congress funded FEMA through a combination of regular appropriations and emergency funding in response to events.[12]

FEMA under Department of Homeland Security (2003–present)

Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to better coordinate among the different federal agencies that deal with law enforcement, disaster preparedness and recovery, border protection and civil defense. FEMA was absorbed into DHS effective March 1, 2003. As a result, FEMA became part of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of Department of Homeland Security, employing more than 2,600 full-time employees. It became the Federal Emergency Management Agency again on March 31, 2007, but remained in DHS.

President Bush appointed Michael D. Brown as FEMA’s director in January 2003. Brown warned in September 2003 that FEMA’s absorption into DHS would make a mockery of FEMA’s new motto, “A Nation Prepared”, and would “fundamentally sever FEMA from its core functions”, “shatter agency morale” and “break longstanding, effective and tested relationships with states and first responder stakeholders”. The inevitable result of the reorganization of 2003, warned Brown, would be “an ineffective and uncoordinated response” to a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.[13]

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 demonstrated that the vision of further unification of functions and another reorganization could not address the problems FEMA had previously faced. The “Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina“, released February 15, 2006, by the U.S. Government Printing Office, revealed that federal funding to states for “all hazards” disaster preparedness needs was not awarded unless the local agencies made the purposes for the funding a “just terrorism” function.[14]

Emergency management professionals testified that funds for preparedness for natural hazards was given less priority than preparations for counter terrorism measures. Testimony also expressed the opinion that the mission to mitigate vulnerability and prepare for natural hazard disasters before they occurred had been separated from disaster preparedness functions, making the nation more vulnerable to known hazards, like hurricanes.[15]

Organization

During the debate of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, some called for FEMA to remain as an independent agency. Later, following the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, critics called for FEMA to be removed from the Department of Homeland Security.[16] Today FEMA exists as a major agency of the Department of Homeland Security. The Administrator for Federal Emergency Management reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. In March 2003, FEMA joined 22 other federal agencies, programs and offices in becoming the Department of Homeland Security. The new department, headed by Secretary Tom Ridge, brought a coordinated approach to national security from emergencies and disasters – both natural and man-made.

FEMA manages the National Flood Insurance Program. Other programs FEMA previously administered have since been internalized or shifted under direct DHS control.

FEMA is also home to the National Continuity Programs Directorate (formerly the Office of National Security Coordination). ONSC was responsible for developing, exercising, and validating agency wide continuity of operations and continuity of government plans as well as overseeing and maintaining continuity readiness including the Mount Weather Emergency Operations Center. ONSC also coordinated the continuity efforts of other Federal Executive Agencies.

Pre-disaster mitigation programs

FEMA’s Mitigation Directorate[18] is responsible for programs that take action before a disaster, in order to identify risks and reduce injuries, loss of property, and recovery time.[19] The agency has major analysis programs for floods, hurricanes, dams, and earthquakes.[19][20]

FEMA works to ensure affordable flood insurance is available to homeowners in flood plains, through the National Flood Insurance Program, and also works to enforce no-build zones in known flood plains and relocate or elevate some at-risk structures.[21]

Pre-Disaster Mitigation grants are available to acquire property for conversion to open space, retrofit existing buildings, construct tornado and storm shelters, manage vegetation for erosion and fire control, and small flood control projects.[22]

Taking Shelter From the Storm

The safe room construction plans and specifications from FEMA P-320, Taking Shelter From the Storm, are available in pdfand dwg format.[23]

Response capabilities

FEMA’s emergency response is based on small, decentralized teams trained in such areas as the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS), Urban Search and Rescue (USAR), Disaster Mortuary Operations Response Team (DMORT), Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT), and Mobile Emergency Resource Support (MERS).

National Response Coordination Center (NRCC)

FEMA’s National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) is a multiagency center located at FEMA HQ that coordinates the overall Federal support for major disasters and emergencies, including catastrophic incidents in support of operations at the regional-level. The FEMA Administrator,[24] or his or her delegate, activates the NRCC in anticipation of, or in response to, an incident by activating the NRCC staff, which includes FEMA personnel, the appropriate Emergency Support Functions, and other appropriate personnel (including nongovernmental organization and private sector representatives). During the initial stages of a response FEMA will, as part of the whole community, focus on projected, potential, or escalating critical incident activities. The NRCC coordinates with the affected region(s) and provides needed resources and policy guidance in support of incident-level operations. The NRCC staff specifically provides emergency management coordination, planning, resource deployment, and collects and disseminates incident information as it builds and maintains situational awareness—all at the national-level.[25] FEMA maintains the NRCC as a functional component of the NOC for incident support operations.[26][27]

An example of NRCC activity is the coordination of emergency management activities that took place in connection with the2013 Colorado floods.[28]

The NDMS was transferred from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Health and Human Services, under the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, signed by President George W. Bush, on December 18, 2006.

NDMS is made of teams that provide medical and allied care to disaster victims. These teams include doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc., and are typically sponsored by hospitals, public safety agencies or private organizations. Also, Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) teams, composed of officers of the Commissioned Corps of the United States Public Health Service, were developed to assist with the NDMS.

Urban Search and Rescue (US&R)

Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS)

FEMA vehicle provides communications support after a major hurricane.

These teams provide communications support to local public safety. For instance, they may operate a truck with satellite uplink, computers, telephone and power generation at a staging area near a disaster so that the responders can communicate with the outside world. There are also Mobile Air Transportable Telecommunications System (MATTS) assets which can be airlifted in. Also portable cellphone towers can be erected to allow local responders to access telephone systems.

Preparedness for nuclear incidents

On August 1, 2008, FEMA had released “Planning Guidance for Protection and Recovery Following Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) and Improvised Nuclear Device (IND) incidents”[29] which indicate action guide in case of radiation contamination. This Notice is specified as action guide for Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD) and Improvised Nuclear Device (IND) involving high levels of radiation. According to the Federation of American Scientists, during the Cold War FEMA prepared assessments of the likely consequences of a full-scale Soviet nuclear attack on the United States for use in planning mitigation and recovery efforts.[30]

Training

FEMA offers a large number of training classes, either at its own centers, through programs at the state level, in cooperation with colleges and universities, or online. The latter are free classes available to anyone, although only those with U.S. residency or work eligibility can take the final examinations. More information is available on the FEMA website under the “Emergency Personnel” and “Training” subheadings. Other emergency response information for citizens is also available at its website.

FEMA runs the Incident Workforce Academy, a two-week emergency preparedness training program for FEMA employees. The first class of the academy graduated in early 2014.[31]

The Training and Education Division within FEMA’s National Integration Center directly funds training for responders and provides guidance on training-related expenditures under FEMA’s grant programs. Catalog available at TED Course Catalog[dead link]. Information on designing effective training for first responders is available from the Training and Education Division at First Responder Training. Emergency managers and other interested members of the public can take independent study courses for certification at FEMA’s online Emergency Management Institute.

FEMA Corps

FEMA Corps, who range in age from 18–24 years old, is a cadre dedicated to disaster response and recovery. It is a new partnership between The Corporation for National and Community Service’s AmeriCorps NCCC and FEMA.[32] The Corps, described as a “dedicated, trained, and reliable disaster workforce” works full-time for ten months on federal disaster response and recovery efforts. The first 231 members of the FEMA Corps class graduated in July 2013. The Corps work on teams of 8 to 12 people, and follow the traditional NCCC model of living together and traveling together. In addition to working with FEMA, corps members must perform AmeriCorps responsibilities such as Physical Training three times a week, National Days of Service, and Individual Service Projects in communities throughout The United States. The Corps receives $4.75 a day for food, and a living stipend of approximately $4,000 over ten months. An education award is distributed to corps members who successfully serve 10 months of service, completing 1,700 total hours.[33]

FEMA Corps Pacific Region Blue Unit

Donations management

FEMA has led a Public-Private Partnership in creating a National Donations Management Program making it easier for corporations or individuals not previously engaged to make offers of free assistance to States and the Federal Government in times of disaster. The program is a partnership among FEMA, relief agencies, corporations/corporate associations and participating state governments. The technical backbone of the program is an online technology solution called The Aidmatrix Network which is managed by the independent nonprofit organization, Aidmatrix.

Criticism

Hurricane Andrew – 1992

In August 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck the Florida and Louisiana coasts with 165 mph (265 km/h) sustained winds. FEMA was widely criticized for its response to Andrew, summed up by the famous exclamation, “Where in the hell is the cavalry on this one?” by Kate Hale, emergency management director for Dade County, Florida. FEMA and the federal government at large were accused of not responding fast enough to house, feed and sustain the approximately 250,000 people left homeless in the affected areas. Within five days the federal government and neighboring states had dispatched 20,000National Guard and active duty troops to South Dade County to set up temporary housing. This event and FEMA’s performance was reviewed by the National Academy of Public Administration in its February 1993 report “Coping With Catastrophe” which identified several basic paradigms in Emergency Management and FEMA administration that were causes of the failed response.

FEMA had previously been criticized for its response to Hurricane Hugo, which hit South Carolina in September 1989, and many of the same issues that plagued the agency during Hurricane Andrew were also evident during the response toHurricane Katrina in 2005.

Additionally, upon incorporation into DHS, FEMA was legally dissolved and a new Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate was established in DHS to replace it. Following enactment of the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 FEMA was reestablished as an entity within DHS, on March 31, 2007.

Southern Florida Hurricanes – 2004

South Florida newspaper Sun-Sentinel has an extensive list of documented criticisms of FEMA during the four hurricanes that hit the region in 2004.[34] Some of the criticisms include:

When Hurricane Frances hit South Florida on Labor Day weekend (over 100 miles north of Miami-Dade County), 9,800 Miami-Dade applicants were approved by FEMA for $21 million in storm claims for new furniture; clothes; thousands of new televisions, microwaves and refrigerators; cars; dental bills; and a funeral even though the Medical Examiner recorded no deaths from Frances. A U.S. Senate committee and the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security found that FEMA inappropriately declared Miami-Dade county a disaster area and then awarded millions, often without verifying storm damage or a need for assistance.[35][36]

FEMA used hurricane aid money to pay funeral expenses for at least 203 Floridians whose deaths were not caused by the 2004 Hurricanes, the state’s coroners have concluded. Ten of the people whose funerals were paid for were not even in Florida at the time of their deaths.[37]

Hurricane Katrina – 2005

FEMA received intense criticism for its response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in August 2005. FEMA had pre-positioned response personnel in the Gulf Coast region. However, many could not render direct assistance and were only able to report on the dire situation along the Gulf Coast, especially from New Orleans. Within three days, a large contingent ofNational Guard and active duty troops were deployed to the region.

The enormous number of evacuees simply overwhelmed rescue personnel. The situation was compounded by flood waters in the city that hampered transportation and poor communication among the federal government, state and local entities. FEMA was widely criticized for what is seen as a slow initial response to the disaster and an inability to effectively manage, care for and move those trying to leave the city.

Then-FEMA Director Michael D. Brown was criticized personally for a slow response and an apparent disconnection with the situation. Michael Brown would eventually be relieved of command of the Katrina disaster and soon thereafter resigned.

Katrina was seen as the first major test of the nation’s new disaster response plan under DHS. It is widely held that many things did not function as planned.

“The Secretary Department of Homeland Security should have designated the Principal Federal Official on Saturday, two days prior to landfall, from the roster of PFOs who had successfully completed the required training, unlike then FEMA Director Michael Brown. Considerable confusion was caused by the Secretary’s PFO decisions.”

“DHS and FEMA lacked adequate trained and experienced staff for the Katrina response.”

“The readiness of FEMA’s national emergency response teams was inadequate and reduced the effectiveness of the federal response.”

“Long-standing weaknesses and the magnitude of the disaster overwhelmed FEMA’s ability to provide emergency shelter and temporary housing.”

“FEMA logistics and contracting systems did not support a targeted, massive, and sustained provision of commodities.”

A DMAT member assures a rescued man that the trip to the airport will be safe.

Other failings were also noted. The Committee devoted an entire section of the report to listing the actions of FEMA.[39] Their conclusion was:

“For years emergency management professionals have been warning that FEMA’s preparedness has eroded. Many believe this erosion is a result of the separation of the preparedness function from FEMA, the drain of long-term professional staff along with their institutional knowledge and expertise, and the inadequate readiness of FEMA’s national emergency response teams. The combination of these staffing, training, and organizational structures made FEMA’s inadequate performance in the face of a disaster the size of Katrina all but inevitable.”[39]

Pursuant to a temporary restraining order issued by Hon. Stanwood R. Duval, United States District Court Judge, Eastern District of Louisiana as a result of the McWaters v. FEMA class-action, 7 February 2006 was set as the deadline for the official end of any further coverage of temporary housing costs for Katrina victims.[40][41]

After the February 7 deadline, Katrina victims were left to their own devices either to find permanent housing for the long term, or to continue in social welfare programs set up by other organizations. There were many Katrina evacuees living in temporary shelters and/or trailer parks set up by FEMA and other relief organizations in the first months after the disaster hit, but many more were still unable to find housing.

In July 2007, ice that had been ordered for Katrina victims but had never been used and kept in storage facilities, at a cost of $12.5 million, was melted down.[42]

In June 2008, a CNN investigation found that FEMA gave away about $85 million in household goods meant for Hurricane Katrina victims to 16 other states.[43]

Buffalo snowstorm – 2006

FEMA came under attack for their response to the October Surprise Storm on 13 October 2006 in Buffalo, New York. As FEMA legally cannot interfere with state business unless asked, FEMA responded that as per procedure, the Governor of the state of New York had not asked for FEMA’s assistance. FEMA Headquarters had been in constant contact with State congressional offices providing them with the latest information available. Claims state that FEMA officials did not arrive until 16 October, three days after the storm hit. The damage by this time included downed power wires, downed trees, and structural damage to homes and businesses.[44]

Dumas, Arkansas, tornadoes – 2007

Many people of Dumas, Arkansas, especially victims of the February 24, 2007 tornadoes, criticized FEMA’s response in not supplying the amount of new trailers they needed, and only sending a set of used trailers, lower than the needed quantity. Following the storm, U.S SenatorMark Pryor had criticized FEMA’s response to the recovery and cleanup efforts.[45]

California wildfires – 2007

FEMA came under intense criticism when it was revealed that a press conference on theOctober 2007 California wildfires was staged. Deputy Administrator Harvey E. Johnson was answering questions from FEMA employees who were posing as reporters. Many of these questions were “soft ball” questions (i.e., “Are you happy with FEMA’s response so far?”), intentionally asked in a way that would evoke a positive response giving the impression that FEMA was doing everything right. In this way, any scrutiny from real reporters (many of whom were only given a 15 minute notice) would have been avoided. Fox News, MSNBC, and other media outlets aired the staged press briefing live.[46] Real reporters were notified only 15 minutes in advance and were only able to call in to a conference line, which was set to “listen-only” mode. The only people there were primarily FEMA public affairs employees.[47]

^ Jump up to:abcBea, Keith, “Proposed Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security”, Order Code RL31510 (updated 29 July 2002), Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service: Library of Congress.

Jump up^Senate Bipartisan Committee (February 15, 2006), “The Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C.

My other blog: Justice for Jacqueline and Janessa Greig

September 9th was the fifth anniversary of the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion that killed (murdered) CPUC Gas Ratepayer Advocate Mrs. Jacqueline (Jackie) Greig and her thirteen year old daughter, Janessa. Mrs. Greig was the head of her department and was in charge of approving a 3.6 billion dollar rate increase proposal submitted by PG&E […]

Alan Wang (KGO Reporter) SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — PG&E is waiting to get hit with criminal charges. The federal government is expected to go after the utility for that pipeline disaster in San Bruno more than three years ago. The gas explosion was always a crime in the eyes of Gayle Masuno whose 87-year old […]

Well, I just finished the story about attending the Subcommittee meeting and I must say, it wasn’t easy. It was difficult for several reasons but most of them had to do with me being new to blogging, especially this particular template that you see here. Even though both of my blogs are on WordPress (which […]